Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

That does you no good.

It is the amount of decayed product that you have no answer for.

False. The amount of decayed product is only how much actually decayed since this state started, which is precious little!

 

[dad]

Did you learn nothing from what I've been saying about how half lives work?

Let's see what you have to teach in this post then!

It has a half life of three weeks. We'd see it all if the universe was a year old.

Right...and?

It lends no support whatsoever to your point. No one has disputed the claim that decay occurs in this state. The point is that the decay product ratios of elements with longer half lives proves that decay has been happening for millions of years.

Doesn't follow unless there was a same state past. You do not prove one existed by assuming one, and believing real hard!!! For the last three weeks yes, we know the state. That is a red herring and not an issue!

 

[dad]

No, that is a fairy tale.

Don't be insulting to the prophets and holy men and history!

Look at your sig. You have been defeated constantly and yet the untruthful claim stands.

Seek help. You seem to have an issue with being defeated. I suggest you accept defeat graciously, learn from it, and rejoice that there really is a God and creator.

But that was not what was predicted now was it?

Refresh my memory.

Don't you ever read your own book of myth?

Perhaps not all that much. But I try to believe it. Does that count?

 

[Kylie]

Let's see what you have to teach in this post then!

*Sigh* Fine. Why don't you actually try a well reasoned argument for once though?

Right...and?

And it renders any point you were trying to make meaningless.

Doesn't follow unless there was a same state past. You do not prove one existed by assuming one, and believing real hard!!! For the last three weeks yes, we know the state. That is a red herring and not an issue!

Once again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

There is evidence of a same state past.

That's the whole thing I was going on about the ratios for! Geez, don't you read my posts?

And since ONCE AGAIN you have failed to answer my question, I will put it in big writing because apparently you keep missing it.

If most of the decay products were here before your alleged state change, how do you explain the fact that they are in EXACTLY the right ratios to match millions of years of decay?

You only have two options here, dad. Either the amounts are the result of an unimaginable coincidence, or they are the result of millions of years of radioactive decay. Which is it to be?

Hope you didn't miss it this time. I expect an answer to it in your reply. Coincidence or same state past?

 

[dad]

Once again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

There is evidence of a same state past.

Where is it hiding??

If most of the decay products were here before your alleged state change, how do you explain the fact that they are in EXACTLY the right ratios to match millions of years of decay?

Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.

Hope you didn't miss it this time. I expect an answer to it in your reply. Coincidence or same state past?

That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.

 

[dad]

Once again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

There is evidence of a same state past.

Where is it hiding??

If most of the decay products were here before your alleged state change, how do you explain the fact that they are in EXACTLY the right ratios to match millions of years of decay?

Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.

Hope you didn't miss it this time. I expect an answer to it in your reply. Coincidence or same state past?

That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.
That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.

Firstly, I think you mean "hunker down". I don't think that honker is a verb. Unless you mean honk, which raises...troubling questions.

Secondly, let me just fix that for you.

You assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches old ages.

It does indeed! Thank goodness for the stable and measurable rate of decay of radioactive isotopes we can use to investigate things like this, no?

 

[Kylie]

Where is it hiding??

It's not. It's right in front of you. You're just blinkered by your different state past belief and have blinded yourself to it. Try reading and comprehending what I am saying. A little education will open your eyes.

Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.

There is no way you can force the ratios we see in the real world into your different state past idea.

That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.

Oh did you now? Pray tell, in which post was this? Because I have never seen you say, "It was the result of millions of years of radioactive decay", nor have I seen you say, "It's all a big amazing coincidence." So where exactly did you answer it?

 

[dad]

Firstly, I think you mean "hunker down". I don't think that honker is a verb. Unless you mean honk, which raises...troubling questions.

Funny I was not much troubled by whether a u or o was used. But you can have the point. Hunker is fine. Long as the poster does it.

It does indeed! Thank goodness for the stable and measurable rate of decay of radioactive isotopes we can use to investigate things like this, no?

Yes thank goodness for our present state. Here we find that things are measurable. Long as you do not claim investigating this state is investigating anything else, Sherlock!

 

[biggles53]

Kylie, it's like this.........if your religious beliefs inform you that 1+1=3, then it won't matter if all the mathematicians in the world are able to conclusively prove to you that you are wrong.....you will cling tenaciously to your belief regardless. This is the whole point of a world view based on faith. It encourages, no it mandates, an imaginary 'reality'....it's an emotional investment, not an intellectual one, even though people like dad will put it in a cheap dress and smear on some makeup in order to convince themselves that it has some value.....

 

[dad]

It's not. It's right in front of you. You're just blinkered by your different state past belief and have blinded yourself to it.

I think we all realize there is decay and that some things decay into other things. The issue is whether the things that cause decay (forces and laws) existed in a time that you know nothing about. Because you say you can see, therefore you are making bogus claims.

Try reading and comprehending what I am saying. A little education will open your eyes.

We can see the little you say. I thing your point is decaying.

There is no way you can force the ratios we see in the real world into your different state past idea.

No forcing needed. Ratios without decay are no problem whatsoever. Your problem is that you can't force decay into the former state!

Oh did you now? Pray tell, in which post was this? Because I have never seen you say, "It was the result of millions of years of radioactive decay", nor have I seen you say, "It's all a big amazing coincidence." So where exactly did you answer it?

In one of the posts where it was explained that decay was not a factor most likely in the former state! If we have x amount of what is now daughter material, that x in the former state could have been parent material, or both, or neither or..who knows what in a different state.

The only way you can impose deep time on any imagined decaying is to establish there was a same state past FIRST. Merely attributing the very existence of all daughter material to decay is a total belief.

 

[Kylie]

I think we all realize there is decay and that some things decay into other things. The issue is whether the things that cause decay (forces and laws) existed in a time that you know nothing about. Because you say you can see, therefore you are making bogus claims.

So you think that the amount of daughter material is caused by contamination, not decay, and all the samples all around the world just magically happen to be contaminated by exactly the right amount to make it look like it's much older than it really is.

Really, that's your position, is it?

We can see the little you say. I thing your point is decaying.

You have shown yourself to be very ignorant of what I am talking about.

No forcing needed. Ratios without decay are no problem whatsoever. Your problem is that you can't force decay into the former state!

Your problem is that you can't explain why the ratios are what they are without resorting to an amazing coincidence!

In one of the posts where it was explained that decay was not a factor most likely in the former state! If we have x amount of what is now daughter material, that x in the former state could have been parent material, or both, or neither or..who knows what in a different state.

Magical coincidence. Got it.

The only way you can impose deep time on any imagined decaying is to establish there was a same state past FIRST. Merely attributing the very existence of all daughter material to decay is a total belief.

If you'd bothered to read (which you haven't) and comprehend (which you haven't) what I've been saying, you;d understand that the ratios we see CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN FORMED THROUGH MILLIONS OF YEARS OF DECAY. But you;d rather claim it was an amazing coincidence, wouldn't you?

 

[dad]

So you think that the amount of daughter material is caused by contamination, not decay, and all the samples all around the world just magically happen to be contaminated by exactly the right amount to make it look like it's much older than it really is.

No. I do not think daughter material was daughter material before it started being a result of decay in this state!

Your problem is that you can't explain why the ratios are what they are without resorting to an amazing coincidence!

You can't explain why anything but a present state cause is coincidence! Absurd.

...the ratios we see CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN FORMED THROUGH MILLIONS OF YEARS OF DECAY.

False! IF the present state existed that long then it would take millions of years. That says nothing as to whether there was a same state past! You are busted.

 

[Kylie]

All you have is fantasy, dad. Give it up.

No. I do not think daughter material was daughter material before it started being a result of decay in this state!

So how'd we get millions of years worth?

You can't explain why anything but a present state cause is coincidence! Absurd.

Do you even think about what you say? This is just mindless ranting.

False! IF the present state existed that long then it would take millions of years. That says nothing as to whether there was a same state past! You are busted.

So it needed millions of years to happen the way we see it, but that doesn't mean that those millions of years took place.

Does any of this make sense to you, because it's all nonsense from this side.

Come to reality, dad.

 

[dad]

All you have is fantasy, dad. Give it up.

So called science is fantasy in drag.

So how'd we get millions of years worth?

We didn't. The amount could not represent time and decay unless the present state existed. That you do not know.

So it needed millions of years to happen the way we see it, but that doesn't mean that those millions of years took place.

It needed no millions of years. I said IF there had been a present state THEN it would take millions of years. In a former state that was different, no millions of years are needed at all.

Come to reality, dad.

Chant it all day long and repeat the word if you like. It really doesn't associate you with it.

 

[Kylie]

So called science is fantasy in drag.

La la la, you got anything more than just immature insults?

We didn't. The amount could not represent time and decay unless the present state existed. That you do not know.

It couldn't exist AT ALL unless the present state existed.

It needed no millions of years. I said IF there had been a present state THEN it would take millions of years. In a former state that was different, no millions of years are needed at all.

Ah yes, once again your magical astonishing coincidence! It operated completely differently, yet somehow, miraculously, it happened to turn out looking just like it had formed from millions of years of decay. How wonderful is it? What are the chances of such a coincidence?

Chant it all day long and repeat the word if you like. It really doesn't associate you with it.

I don't think anyone here associates your different state past claim with reality...

 

[biggles53]

See what I mean..? He knows the answer, I think he has processed it intellectually......but, he mustn't accept it....!

Quite sad really.....especially for an adult mind.....

 

[dad]

La la la, you got anything more than just immature insults?

Plenty for so called science. Let us know when a fresh one is needed.

It couldn't exist AT ALL unless the present state existed.

Prove that? How would you know? That is foolish. So man could not exist in anything but the present state? Rocks...atoms...etc??? Outlandish.

Ah yes, once again your magical astonishing coincidence! It operated completely differently, yet somehow, miraculously, it happened to turn out looking just like it had formed from millions of years of decay.

If a lot of daughter material was left, how could same state past folks look at it any other way? That is not my problem. I am unbiased. They just need to get over their religious obsessions.

How wonderful is it? What are the chances of such a coincidence?

100%

I don't think anyone here associates your different state past claim with reality...

It is not about feelings, or hunches as to whether God is right about His record to man. It is all about what is known. The former state does not depend on a vote. Really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See what I mean..? He knows the answer, I think he has processed it intellectually......but, he mustn't accept it....!

Quite sad really.....especially for an adult mind.....

That is why the proper term for dad's "former state" is actually "delusional state". He cannot defend the fact that his "former state" predicts things that we do not observe. In other words his former state is falsified.

 

[Kylie]

100%

So you've finally decided that invoking an amazing coincidence that happened for no reason is the only way to keep your little idea.